[Goater]

I heard on the radio, but not the complete story, about California having background checks for ammo. Something about a $50 fee.

Can anyone fill me in with more info? Is it law? When would it go into effect? Does it apply to shotgun shells? Is the $50 a one time fee?

 

[RandyWakeman]

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2016/06/ ... er-ballot/

 

[thestumper]

What we really need is a Cal-exit.....

 

[hattles]

I heard on the radio, but not the complete story, about California having background checks for ammo. Something about a $50 fee.

Can anyone fill me in with more info? Is it law? When would it go into effect? Does it apply to shotgun shells? Is the $50 a one time fee?

"We will be the only state in America that has background checks on point-of-sale purchases of ammunition." -Gavin Newsom

How Gavin Newsom's Initiative Will Flatten California Gun Owners
https://www.nraila.org/articles/2016010 ... gun-owners
"Safety for All" initiative is anything but safe.

Newsom Obsession with Gun Owner Control Reflects His Own Self-Control Issues
by David Codrea
https://www.oathkeepers.org/newsom-obse ... ol-issues/

 

[Road Man]

Seems like a good time to buy that reloading press...

 

[Claysmoke27]

I'm hearing about a $50 ID card or some such thing. Also a $1 fee for every check. I think a lot of the places we now buy ammo at simply wont sell it anymore due the increase in hassle. Also no on-line purchases allowed unless you can get a licensed "ammo distributor" to accept it for you. Don't think many will be interested in doing that, not to mention many distributors won't ship to Cal period. And forget about bringing it in from another state. That will soon be illegal too.
Unless the courts overturn this (fat chance), we are in trouble.
Even if you reload, many clubs rely on the income from casual shooters to survive. I think a lot of people will give up shooting- that's exactly what they want.
This is a dark time for California and the Constitution.

 

[slotracer577]

Until Ammo is registered you can bring it in from other states. No way to track where or when it was purchased.
We have much the same thing with magazines in co. You can't buy more than 10 rnd magazines, but if you buy them with a mfg dare prior to the start of the law there is no way to prove when or where they were purchased.

 

[Claysmoke27]

After the law is in effect, it will be illegal.
Sure, you might get way with it, but if caught it might be a felony and then all your guns could be confiscated, and you would be unable to own any more.
Lot numbers on ammo boxes can establish date of manufacture, and potentially cause you problems too. If the law came into effect in 2017 and your ammo was made in 2018, you have some explaining to do.
We are in the twilight.

 

[DallasCMT]

From the article Randy posted:

"A Field Poll in January found 80 percent of Californians supporting background checks for buying ammunition and 58 percent favoring outlawing the possession of large-capacity magazines."

That's nuts, 80%? What would the Texas vote reflect? Do CA people really think this is going to keep people who want to kill people from getting ammo?

 

[Claysmoke27]

Polls are BS.
They ask a question in a way that engineers the response, then spin that any way they want.
There are 3 kinds of lies: white lies, damn lies and statistics.

 

[slotracer577]

Much like the statistic that people support back ground checks. If you called it what it really is (registration), I am pretty sure the approval would be a lot lower.

 

[thestumper]

From the article Randy posted:

"A Field Poll in January found 80 percent of Californians supporting background checks for buying ammunition and 58 percent favoring outlawing the possession of large-capacity magazines."

That's nuts, 80%? What would the Texas vote reflect? Do CA people really think this is going to keep people who want to kill people from getting ammo?

Repeat after me: "It's. Not. About. That."

And it never has been. Look for a repeat performance in states like NY, NJ, WA, MD, RI, CT. Those will be the first to follow. If it passes muster through the highest courts, it will be coming to a state near you. For liberal scum, it's a cash grab AND a step towards disarmament: what's not to love!?!?!? You have to give them credit - if you can't get the guns, make them a PITA to own and shoot. For those that didn't see this coming 1000 miles away... you picked one heck of a time to pull your heads out of your butts.

This election is ALL about the Supreme Court - make no mistake about it. The candidates names and policies don't even matter. It's all about who they put on the bench. What you're seeing in CA is maybe 5-10 years from becoming the national norm if nothing changes. A progressive Supreme Court all but ensures it.

 

[Road Man]

There is a very vocal guy in my gun club that has been saying for years. "They won't be able to stop all the guns, it's never going to be about the guns, IT'S ABOUT THE AMMO!"

The only ammo he buys is .22. He reloads everything else, and he has thousands of rounds of every caliber he shoots. For the slower speed ammo he casts his own bullets, for the speedier stuff he buys 10,000 bullets at a time. He has ample supplies of brass, primers, powder, bullets, and lead ingots for metallic, for shotgun he has hulls, primers, powder, wads, and shot in all of his standard sizes.

He is the guy that got me started reloading a few years ago, now the only ammo I buy is .22. I keep my chambering's simple making sure that I have several firearms in only a few standard calibers, and for shotgun I keep it to 12 gauge, but I am open to adding 20 gauge in the future.

Buy a couple of good presses and the components and get to work!

Ammunition is not mentioned in the Second Amendment, heck we have enough trouble with firearms, and they are mentioned.

 

[RandyWakeman]

Ammunition is not mentioned in the Second Amendment, heck we have enough trouble with firearms, and they are mentioned.

No.

The text of the 2nd Amendment does not mention firearms at all, it mentions "arms." http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

(4) The U.S. Constitution does not adequately define "arms". When it was adopted, "arms" included muzzle-loaded muskets and pistols, swords, knives, bows with arrows, and spears. However, a common- law definition would be "light infantry weapons which can be carried and used, together with ammunition, by a single militiaman, functionally equivalent to those commonly used by infantrymen in land warfare." That certainly includes modern rifles and handguns, full-auto machine guns and shotguns, grenade and grenade launchers, flares, smoke, tear gas, incendiary rounds, and anti-tank weapons, but not heavy artillery, rockets, or bombs, or lethal chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Somewhere in between we need to draw the line. The standard has to be that "arms" includes weapons which would enable citizens to effectively resist government tyranny, but the precise line will be drawn politically rather than constitutionally. The rule should be that "arms" includes all light infantry weapons that do not cause mass destruction. If we follow the rule that personal rights should be interpreted broadly and governmental powers narrowly, which was the intention of the Framers, instead of the reverse, then "arms" must be interpreted broadly.

 

[Road Man]

Randy, I am familiar with the reference to "Arms" and the meaning of it. I took a small bit of license with my comment, but since I am not a lawyer and only speak in layman terms I am comfortable with the comment I made. The words are not precisely synonymous, however they are similar enough to get my meaning across to most readers.

Personally I think the new law in California STINKS, I am very glad I moved out of the state many years ago. I feel for my friends in California, and many other states, that need to live under what I feel are laws that impose burdens on citizens that are what I consider to be greater than should be legal.

 

[Claysmoke27]

The right to ammunition is a "corollary right" and has been upheld as such in the past, but I just don't know anymore.
California is a lost cause as far as gun owners influencing lawmakers, with the possible exceptions of recall efforts that some are talking about.
Our only hope is the courts.
I don't think there will ever be enough reloaders to support public ranges and the loss of casual shooters could result in a domino effect leading to many ranges closing. And don't think they aren't working on reloading. Powder? OMG! Imagine the horror! Bombs!
As mentioned above, if this all survives the challenges it will only spread.
This is serious @&>%

 

[RandyWakeman]

The enumerated rights expressed in the Constitution do not preclude voters in the States from perverting them.

 

[Claysmoke27]

Indeed. That's where the courts come in.

 

[pjmx]

I would not be concerned on buying ammo if needed. Helps if you have a "Real I.D." thru the DMV.

Phillips Wholesale in Covina has this notice, below, in regards to ammo purchases. Rick the owner is a straight shooter & I frequent his shop when I need reloading supplies.

https://www.phillipswholesale.com/new---updates.html

...pete

 

[oneounceload]

Seems like folks making trips to NV and AZ may start having greater frequency.